Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

Mike writes "Carnegie Mellon roboticist Dr. William Whittaker has teamed up with Astrobiotic Technology to develop a solar powered moon rover that will explore the Apollo landing site in 2011. The photovoltaic clad robot features two electric motors in the hub of each wheel, and a half cone of solar generators up top that will power the wheels, run computers, and beam stereo HD video back to earth. The project has been entered in the $25 million Google Lunar X Prize competition."

Why? Sure, its "cool" to preserve everything, but its a heck of a lot more valuable to see how the machines have fared for the eventual colonization of the moon and for future generations. I'm not exactly sure what the point is if we are looking back on history rather than creating it.

Mod parent up. Why should we preserve it? How are we suppose to move forward (by seeing how the machines have fared and see if it is possible to use this as a launch to Mars or possible location for colonisation) if we refuse to tread on the steps of those that came before? Simply keeping the markings there for no other reason then posterity just sounds like a waste to me when there are things we can learn.

I was talking about the site including the ship and flag etc. It's like the pyramid at Giza, it would be cool to keep a stone from there on your desk, but it's never going to be replaced. If they had landed several lenders and knew they would not randomly land in the middle of the site then cool, but for a first visit it seems risky.

Some things, whether the Buddhas of Banyan or the site of the first ever human feet to walk on the moon, are just too important to be permanently damaged. It's very hard to undo. Think of the emotional impact. Two hundred years from now, some tourist will set eyes on the first ever human footprint on a celestial body, and will be struck with awe at the ingenuity of man. Or, he will see a site that was ransacked by short-sightedness and carelessness and will shake his head at the stupidity of man. Let futur

Why? Sure, its "cool" to preserve everything, but its a heck of a lot more valuable to see how the machines have fared for the eventual colonization of the moon and for future generations. I'm not exactly sure what the point is if we are looking back on history rather than creating it.

Okay then how about preserving the Apollo 11 site but trashing the others? Then everybody's happy.

Oh, for fuck's sake...we go to the trouble to build a super slick rover to explore the surface of another planet, and they want to waste time visiting the.0001% that we already have explored? If there isn't something better to be exploring on the moon, why the hell are we going again?

I knew we were a glorified pack of narcissistic monkeys but this just take it.

"Lets go look and see where we landed LAST time we were here, that seems like a good idea."

It's the economic crisis at work, NASA can't afford to build a new set for a "moon landing", so they are just reusing their old one, thus requiring them to have a cover up for why the old props are in the shot.

I knew we were a glorified pack of narcissistic monkeys but this just take it.

I don't know about you, but I personally think it's pretty cool that an independent team might be able to accomplish with a few million dollars what it previously took an entire government billions of dollars to do.

Going back to the moon has several advantages. First, the Moon is thought to be ripe with Helium3 which is we ever figure cold fusion out would be a major advantage. They estimate that if the space shuttle's cargo bay was filled with helium3, it would be enough to power all of the US for 10 years or more.

But besides that aspect, using the moon as a staging ground for other missions can mean a lot larger payload as well as larger devices being launched to other planets or even solar systems. Imagine if the v

IIRC the LEM already knocked it over when it blasted off for the return flight. Theoretically a lot of the bootprints will also have been erased by the exhaust as well.

I think there's a lot of value to returning to the sites, if only to see how the material withstood the stress of the temperature swings from night and day, long term effects of being in a vacuum and exposed to the solar winds and so on.

IIRC the LEM already knocked it over when it blasted off for the return flight. Theoretically a lot of the bootprints will also have been erased by the exhaust as well.

I'm not so sure about that. The LEM [wikimedia.org] consisted of two parts, the descent stage, and the ascent stage. The Ascent stage stood about 11 feet off of the ground atop the descent stage. The descent stage would have acted as a deflector [geocities.com], shunting aside the ascent motor exhaust and protecting the bootprint. If you watch the Apollo 14 [youtube.com] and Apoll [youtube.com]

As the other poster stated, NASA itself states that the flag was knocked over by the blast - "Buzz" looked out and saw it happen while Neil was piloting the ascent module.

As for the ascents being gentle, apparently they didn't feel that way on the inside. Also, although the lunar surface is (almost) a vacuum, there would have been a tiny breeze from the engine exhaust. It would rapidly dissipate, of course, but it still was enough to scatter some things.

This single punch is all that's required to earn my respect. No speech, interview, or biography holds as much weight to the punch he threw. It's an act of pure love and protection of the sacrifice he made to make history for all mankind.

What's sad is that he sued Buzz Aldrin for this. I don't know. If I just got my ass kicked by a septegenerian, I think I would hide in a hole and hope everyone forgot. I certainly wouldn't sue the guy.

No, what Buzz proved is that he won't tolerate someone getting in his face and calling him a coward and a liar.

From Wikipedia:

According to Aldrin, he was lured to a Beverly Hills hotel under the pretext of an interview on space for a Japanese children's television show. When he arrived, Aldrin claims Sibrel was there demanding that he swear on a Bible that he had walked on the moon. When Aldrin refused, Sibrel called him a "coward and a liar and a thief." [1] Aldrin punched Sibrel in the jaw and the inciden

So Buzz is ambushed, cornered, and called a coward and a liar. He tells Sibrel to get away from him. Sibrel continues to press on repeating his claims that Buzz is a coward and a liar and a thief. At this point, it's obvious that there's going to be no reasoning with Sibrel, Sibrel won't simply back down, and will instead continue harassing Buzz until he (Sibrel) gets something he can consider proof of the "faked" moon landing. Add in Buzz being was understandably upset over being lured there under false pretenses and the punch is fully justified in my book. His punch wasn't even a full on roundhouse swing, but a quick jab. That was enough for Sibrel to go down. As far as I'm concerned, Sibrel is the one who's a coward and a liar and he should have been brought up on stalking and defamation of character charges.

I'd just like to toss out the possibility that THIS entire event was staged as well. It certainly gets used a lot as 'evidence' to refute the possibility that the landings were faked.

I wasn't there, in either case, so I won't presume to call it one way or the other. I am just amused at how people draw conclusions without any information at all...

Do you mean staged as in Sibrel tried to get Buzz to react violently or staged as in Buzz was in on it too. If the former, I wouldn't put it past Sibrel. From what I know of him, he's willing to do anything to get anything he can spin as "proof" that the Moon landings never happened. If you mean the latter, then I would disagree. Buzz has never shown any inkling that he would be associated with someone like Sibrel.

In either case, Buzz was ambushed, cornered, called a liar and a coward and didn't have hi

Add in Buzz being was understandably upset over being lured there under false pretenses and the punch is fully justified in my book.

Indeed. Plus, the way it looked in the video, the punch came immediately after the word "coward". Which, I figure, is something that's likely to happen with just about any ex-military man. (Or I could even say, "just about anybody".)

You touched upon the two most important facets: lunar exploration is covered by international treaties, and national laws become relevant when you return back into that country's territory. IIRC there are some laws that govern US citizens' involvement in other space programmes since it is a legitimate issue of national security.

You are aware that most (if not all) of the footprints were obliterated by the rocket that took the astronauts off the moon, right?

Uh, no they weren't. In fact, you can see the tracks of the astronauts in the latest images of the Apollo 11 landing site [discovermagazine.com] returned by the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter.

Aldrin's famous first footprint exists only as a photograph.

That's not at all obvious. When the rockets of the ascent stage were fired, thus beginning the return to rendezvous with Columbia, the surface of the moon may have been shielded by the components of the LM that were left behind.

Um, maybe it's just me but I don't see any footprints in the LRO image of the Apollo 11 landing site. Perhaps you're referring to the footprints in the Apollo 14 image? Those footprints go quite a long ways away from the LM and due to the pixelation of the image it's hard to tell just how well-preserved they might be that close to the descent stage.

I think the Apollo landing sites should be off limits. One mistake and Armstrong's first boot prints could be destroyed. I cannot believe that a group of scientists have the audacity to mess around with the Apollo 11 site.

Armstrong's first boot prints must surely have been destroyed when the ascent module fired its main engine. However, there are probably other footprints further from the LM site that should be preserved.

Actually, the first bootprints might have survived due to the LEM base acting as an umbrella. Sure, the flag may have been knocked over (Aldrin saw it fall), but the lack of atmosphere means there would be no swirling of the dust.

Why is it necessary that we go back and explore what was accomplished in the past? Call me stupid, but it seems like a rover on the moon could do something more useful than exploring a bunch of dusty boot prints and some used equipment. Anyone care to enlighten me?

It might be worth it just to shut up the hoax conspiracy theorists. When private companies are sending their own rovers to the moon, it's pretty hard to call it a government cover-up anymore. Of course, I'm sure it won't convince the die-hards. Nothing will.

I know you were joking, but I think that'd be awesome... follow the path of the rover... up next, follow the path of the rovers on mars, switch between satellite and street view, with maps and directions! (Kidding on the last one, but knowing Google, it'd probably exist and direct you to drive to your local space launch pad and hitch a ride to get there:-P).

Why is it necessary that we go back and explore what was accomplished in the past?

Because the relics of the past visits will give us valuable insight into long-term exposure of our machinery in the environment of the Moon - something that is surely relevant to future efforts of colonization. All the things we left behind have been sitting (hopefully?) untouched for 40 years getting bombarded with micrometeoroids, experiencing huge temperature swings and moonquakes, and generally experiencing the reality of existing there.

I find it fascinating and am excited to see pictures of how the sites have weathered.

If we never go back, then us going in the first place was little better than a once and done gimmick. I'd call it more a demonstration of humanities short attention span and lack of drive than a testament to man's advancement.

Furthermore, sending robots to the moon and exploring the oceans are not mutually exclusive. There's nothing preventing people from doing both.

While they're at it, it would be awesome to deploy a few more seismometers...

Moonquakes [nasa.gov] are pretty damn cool from a seismological perspective. Beyond that, some of the ones recorded by Apollo-installed seismometers were >Mw 5. Big enough to be damaging.

The moon isn't tectonically active, of course, but it is seismically active, and the data recorded in the 70's indicates that the moon's lithosphere is a very different beast compared to earth's. At any rate, it would produce some extremely neat data!

One of the things that I think was near criminal about the post Apollo period was that the ALSEPs were turned off, including the seismometers, to satisfy Senator Proxmire. So many billions of dollars to put them on the Moon, but $ 250,000 / year to keep collecting data was just too much.

Dr. James Kelloway: You think it's all a couple of looney scientists, it's not! It's bigger. There are people out there, *forces* out there, who have a lot to lose. They're grown ups. It's gotten too big, it's in the hands of grown ups!

Charles Brubaker: [dividing up the first aid kit] John, you take the flint. Peter and I will split up the matches. Anybody want the gun?
Lt. Col Peter Willis: I'd shoot my foot.
Cmdr. John Walker: I'd shoot his foot.

damn... didn't notice the commas didn't copy right. You would think that stuff wouldn't be a problem anymore.. I mean we can do so much with technology.... I mean, we can put a man on the moo..... oh... wait...

Possibly just rednendency. The Mars rovers have shown us that a little design redundency and simple, good engineering can go a really, really long way. It sounds like this moon rover is hoping to follow in their metaphorical footsteps. This seems an excellent approach (one that we should take more often) and I wish it the best of luck!

First off, it's bullshit. They may develop the thing, but it's not going to fly itself. The Google X-Prize money is for the development, not the flying, and it's not enough to get it there anyway.

They WANT to have it explore the moon (actually they want to be seen wanting to do so, in order to increase their chances of getting the prize money; you think the timing of the announcement was random?). There's nothing here about anyone else wanting them to.

And given their announced target, I think they've just pointed the space demodulator at their foot. Far too many people would be offended.

All in all, this is a PR job. The guy may be capable of developing, but the chances are that having teamed up with this company, their plans are to get the prize money, maybe develop, maybe not, and know for certain ahead of time it'll never leave the ground. They just want the money. The tip off? Such a device could do valuable research, such as roving around the south pole looking for ice. Are they planning any useful or noble venture like that? No. They're planning on some virtual tourism, and true to big ticket money tourist ideals think that they're permitted to walk on anyone's lawn they wish just so they can take their holiday photos.

Fuck 'em. If you think they're hosebags for wanting to trundle all over what may be the most historic of historic sites, complain to the Google Lunar X-Prize people http://www.googlelunarxprize.org/lunar/contact-us [googlelunarxprize.org] and tell them not to support this project.

the chances are that having teamed up with this company, their plans are to get the prize money, maybe develop, maybe not, and know for certain ahead of time it'll never leave the ground. They just want the money.

What? There's no prize money until you land on the Moon. From the prize website [googlelunarxprize.org]: "The first team to land on the Moon and complete the mission objectives will be awarded $20 million."

I heard Red Whittaker, the team leader, speak last summer; he said he does expect to make money off the project. Not from the prize, as the costs are several times the prize money, but from all the money that can be generated from the publicity of the landing. He wouldn't be doing the project if it was going to lose money; he

No fooling - Red (never heard him called "William") Whittaker is involved. It's a little strange that the summary states he "teamed up" with Astrobotic, given that he is the Chairman and CTO. [astrobotictechnology.com]

But thats the thing, we need to see if they were non-rusting or not. Sure, we can know that they aren't rusted but 40 years of moonquakes, micro-meteoroids and just general disuse is going to make it a valuable insight into a future plan of colonizing the moon.

We could send a rover to do whatever exploration or science and include sensors to collect data on how the rover is faring. We can get birds-eye pictures of the landing sites with telescopes or satellites- any under-the-hood information can just as well be gathered by observing the rover. If waiting a few extra years for data collection means we keep the landing sites intact, I'm all for it.

I can fully get behind this if:
1) the robot proves all "the moon landing was a hoax" a-holes wrong once and for all, and...
2) we build another robot to finish the ass kicking that Buzz Aldrin started on that fuckwad Bart Sibrel.

Not a chance for something solar panel getting enough power over a long period of time on the moon.The moon dust (regolith) sticks to everything electrostatically and it's so fine that brushing it off is damn near impossible.

Optimistically, they write...

There's just one problem left to figure out: how to protect the rover from minus 240 F lunar nights. The team is experimenting with different ways to package lithium ion batteries to be able to function after two weeks of exposure to air that is nearly as

It depends on how tall their rover is. If its panels are high enough off the ground, they would avoid the electrostatic problem. Of course, I can't find any reference to how tall that would need to be.

I agree with the 'air' comment. They don't have to worry about *air* at -240F, they have to worry about plain vacuum radiation.

But even that has been solved, just ask anyone who has designed a satellite with sensitive electronics. After all, nearly all satellites spend 50% of their time in the shade.

I'm not sure about this. Kicked up lunar dust particles move in parabolic trajectories. Since there's no atmosphere, they won't stay afloat and disperse. So, if you know which way the wheels will kick up dust, you can strategically place the solar panels where they won't get dusty. They'll stay clean forever...

That bit about the batteries is really ridiculous. A thin aluminum foil will protect the batteries from thermal radiation just fine. Apart from that, there's no "temperature" on the moon...

If there is a real compelling scientific justification to see how the materials have survived then designate one of the other landing sites that is deemed less important and send the robot there. After all several Apollo missions went to the moon.

Sending one for Apollo 11 sounds more like a badly thought out publicity exercise then anything els

To those whining about returning to an Apollo site instead of doing some new exploration/science:
This isn't a science mission, and the people doing it aren't scientists. The Lunar X Prize isn't trying to promote lunar science. It's about improving space technology. By returning to an Apollo site, the teams can generate lots of public interest that will help them make some money to cover their costs, and break even on the finances. If they went somewhere else these private teams would likely have to absorb

bit strange way to design things. You'll get relatively low power (because a lot of the cells won't be full-on to the sun), and relatively high weight because half of your cells will be in the shade. I'd have thought that you'd get a better power-weight ratio by pivoting a flat plate of cells. It's not as if the direction of the sun is either unpredictable or difficult to detect. Pivots may be a problem, but there are plenty of rotary joints in the machi

"Bet they can do it on the sound-stage in Nevada" - Idiot who doesn't understand that every other idiot also thought of the same joke at the same time.

"But we didn't go to the moon! I saw it on Fox, so it must be true" - Flaming moron who couldn't find their ass with both hands, a copy of an anatomy textbook and a full length mirror.

"LOL, wut, we didn't go to the moon, you peeps are sheep" - Troll, pretending to be the above idiot, thereby becoming a recursive idiot instead (idiot^2).

"NASA SUCKS!!!" - Multiple varieties of idiot, any one of whom very well might be a community college certified rocket scientist.

"NOES! They'll destroy the historic bootprints!" - Idiot who believes that lack of erosion signals lack of change. The bootprints are likely long gone, due to heating and cooling of the rocks, vibrations from the ground and, at the landing sites proper, the exhaust from the ascent stage of the lander. Nobody but your high school science teacher seriously thinks they'll last a hundred years, or whatever numeric value you were told.

"Git offa my lawn you kids!" - Angry curmudgeon tired of being able to predict slashdot posts in advance, just by seeing the fucking story title.

There, now you don't have to read the thread. You just read every post, condensed into one. You're welcome. Now, go defy expectations and RTFA instead.

Sad but true. Now If you'll excuse me I must join the manned vs unmanned debate with a polished version of the same arguments I've been using for years in every previous occurrence of that debate I've participated to.

While I doubt this thing is just a camera with wheels and no other instruments, why would that be a bad thing?Show a kid a telescope view of a moon crater, then show him the high def 3D view of the same crater from a 1st person view, and I guarantee some of those kids will forget about firefighting and want to go to the moon.

Besides, think of how much fun it'll be to take recently released high def lunar photos, photoshop in some subtle evidence of aliens, and forwarding it along to a local newspaper.

"NOES! They'll destroy the historic bootprints!" - Idiot who believes that lack of erosion signals lack of change. The bootprints are likely long gone, due to heating and cooling of the rocks, vibrations from the ground and, at the landing sites proper, the exhaust from the ascent stage of the lander. Nobody but your high school science teacher seriously thinks they'll last a hundred years, or whatever numeric value you were told.

The prints near the landing site I agree with, the ascent stage could very w

"NOES! They'll destroy the historic bootprints!" - Idiot who believes that lack of erosion signals lack of change. The bootprints are likely long gone, due to heating and cooling of the rocks, vibrations from the ground and, at the landing sites proper, the exhaust from the ascent stage of the lander. Nobody but your high school science teacher seriously thinks they'll last a hundred years, or whatever numeric value you were told.

Don't you know that in the year 3000 after landing on the moon and proclaiming

"NOES! They'll destroy the historic bootprints!" - Idiot who thinks there was only one Apollo landing, or that the robot will necessarily visit Apollo 11's site.

The robots will likely be sent to the site of Apollo 17. After all, that's the one for which we have the most and the best photographs. Therefore, a second expedition to that site would be the most valuable. You can say, "here's a picture of this rock from 50 years ago, and here's a picture today" and make some kind of sciency discovery that way. Al

Well, not all of them, and the truth is we don't actually know what the landing sight looks like with very close resolution. Didn't you see the photo of the footpath? Some of the footprints from Apollo 11 remain, certainly. Such details of the LEM pad site are a matter of speculation.